futerko wrote:Only from the point of view of the means, as Wonhyo teaches, the yung perspective is distorted by prejudice, misjudgment, and illusion, while the t'i perspective is free of those things.

That's only refer to the deluded condition in the absence of the intellect. T'i itself has no perspective, it is the intellect that is able to hold the perspective, thus when one strayed to the T'i, basically there is no concern for any perspective, and the state is conditional upon the surrendering or absorption, when there is arising from the state of absorption, on the side of means, one is very much deluded, whereas on the side of t'i, nothing has change, and it has nothing to do with oneself, or one's bodhi (stage of bhumi).

As your above quote from the Maha-prajna-paramitra sastra also shows, "there is no 'non-doing'," So when you say, ""Non-doing" on the side of body refer to its lack of arising and change" - you have made "non-doing" into an existent entity. You have conceptualised emptiness as being formless and involving cessation (i.e. as negation) - how can you then consider the two truths as unified?

'Non-doing' does refer to perspective of the non-arising and changeless. Because the non-doing is on the side of the body, hence it is also of the body - existent. Emptiness refered to the body, but it does not imply a conventional negation, rather it implied an existent in the absence (voidness) of conventional characteristics. The two truths are unified as a single body (emptiness), due to appearance of conventional object is emptiness, its dependent arising nature is also emptiness, and this emptiness is the same as the emptiness of the ultimate nature (thusness).

Or to put it slightly differently - if means is cause and effect, and body is permanently existing non-doing, how can the two ever connect with each other?

The two is connected since the body is the supporting basis of the means, and in buddhism, the fruit is bodhi (means), not nirvana (body), thus to attain the bodhi, one relies on the means. The intellect (means) also connected to the body, since it is of the reason (vidya) of thusness (body).

Jyoti wrote:The two truths are unified as a single body (emptiness), due to appearance of conventional object is emptiness, its dependent arising nature is also emptiness, and this emptiness is the same as the emptiness of the ultimate nature (thusness).

...and therefore the means are also the same emptiness of the ultimate nature.

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

heart wrote:Since the concept isn't known in any source in Sanskrit using it as a kind of key-term, since everything you say revolves around this concept, to defend Yogacara is an error. I would even say that it makes most of your posts off topic. "

The theory of Ti-yung (體用) is covered in the chinese tripitaka which has origin in sanskrit, since yogacara relied on several definitive scriptures (sutras and sastras) of chinese tripitaka containing the theory of Ti-yung, the relying of such theory on yogacara discussion is not off topic.

If that is true feel free to give me the Sanskrit equivalent of "Ti-yung" and a list of Sanskrit text where it appears.

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

Malcolm wrote:That's the problem with mere comparisons of terms, one loses all nuance.

You neglected to cite Tsognyi RInpoche in full i.e. "Rigpa is empty in essence, cognizant by nature, and unconfined in capacity. Simultaneously seeing these three is named rigpa."

Rigpa is also beyond mind, etc.

Actually, I was quoting his father. I get that Dzogchen makes the distinction between mind and mind-essence. As Urgyen Rinpoche says, "In every sentient being there is mind. The essence of this mind, whether it is known or not, is rigpa." The nature of rigpa is further elaborated as unconfined empty awareness.

Because of the importance of this distinction in Dzogchen, one can reasonably ask if such a distinction is made in other buddhist systems, perhaps under different terminology. For example, is generally acknowledged that Dzogchen and Mahamudra describe the same underlying nature, just with different terminology.

In the work I cited, Tracing Back the Radiance, such a distinction is made. For example, "your pure mind-essence of void and calm numinous awareness." Here is a more elaborate description of this mind-essence in response to an expository question within the text,

These are examples of apophatic discourse; they are not intended to expose the essence of the mind. If I did not point out that the cler, constant awareness which is present now, never interrupted and never obscured, is your own mind, what could I refer to as being uncreated and signless and so forth? For this reason, you must realize that all the various teachings explain only that it is this awareness which is neither arising nor ceasing and so forth....Voidness means that it is devoid of all signs; it is still an aphophatic term. Calm is the immutable, immovable aspect of the real nature; it is not the same as empty nothingness. Awareness refers to the manifestation of this very essence; it is not the same as discrimination. These three components alone comprise the fundamental essence of the true mind. Therefore, from the initial activation of the bodhicitta until the attainment of Buddhahood, there is only calmness and only awareness, unchanging and unterrupted. p 164

Thus, the essence of the mind clearly appears to be identified as empty and aware. For someone not looking to pick a nit, this sure seems to be describing rigpa. Now, to get back to the original reason for my comment--essence/function. On top of this basic understanding of mind-essence, with the two notions (functions) of luminosity and unconfined ability to reflect anything (per the mirror analogy mentioned earlier), we see that, although the terminology is different, the underlying framework is essentially the same as Dzogchen--unconfined empty awareness. At least that is how it appears to me.

All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni BuddhaWanting to grasp the ungraspable, you exhaust yourself in vain. --Gendun Rinpoche

heart wrote:If that is true feel free to give me the Sanskrit equivalent of "Ti-yung" and a list of Sanskrit text where it appears.

/magnus

Are you suggesting that "East Asian Yogācāra" is simply mislabelled, or that it is somehow incorrect?

If it's the first, then this seems a bit pedantic, if the second, then maybe you could point out why.

The only thing I suggest is that "Ti-jung" is a concept that don't occur in Indian sources of Yogacara and this makes discussion quite difficult. In order to make a working discussion we would first have to be convinced that the concept "Ti-jung" actually added some understanding about Indian Yogacara and then that this actually had some bearing on Dzogchen, and this feels like a stretch. If you like to insist be my guest.

I personally know nothing about "East Asian Yogācāra" and "Ti-jung" except for what is in this thread

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

heart wrote:If that is true feel free to give me the Sanskrit equivalent of "Ti-yung" and a list of Sanskrit text where it appears.

/magnus

Are you suggesting that "East Asian Yogācāra" is simply mislabelled, or that it is somehow incorrect?

If it's the first, then this seems a bit pedantic, if the second, then maybe you could point out why.

The only thing I suggest is that "Ti-jung" is a concept that don't occur in Indian sources of Yogacara and this makes discussion quite difficult. In order to make a working discussion we would first have to be convinced that the concept "Ti-jung" actually added some understanding about Indian Yogacara and then that this actually had some bearing on Dzogchen, and this feels like a stretch. If you like to insist be my guest.

I personally know nothing about "East Asian Yogācāra" and "Ti-jung" except for what is in this thread

/magnus

Its new to me too, but as far as I can tell they are equivalents for the two truths of dependent origination and emptiness.

The idea was to avoid dualism by seeing jung as being the function of the essence. Unfortuantely terms like entity, substance, and essence may well reflect the issue of seeing emptiness as truly existing which could also be said of the original.

we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche

Malcolm wrote:That's the problem with mere comparisons of terms, one loses all nuance.

You neglected to cite Tsognyi RInpoche in full i.e. "Rigpa is empty in essence, cognizant by nature, and unconfined in capacity. Simultaneously seeing these three is named rigpa."

Rigpa is also beyond mind, etc.

Actually, I was quoting his father. I get that Dzogchen makes the distinction between mind and mind-essence. As Urgyen Rinpoche says, "In every sentient being there is mind. The essence of this mind, whether it is known or not, is rigpa." The nature of rigpa is further elaborated as unconfined empty awareness.

Because of the importance of this distinction in Dzogchen, one can reasonably ask if such a distinction is made in other buddhist systems, perhaps under different terminology. For example, is generally acknowledged that Dzogchen and Mahamudra describe the same underlying nature, just with different terminology.

In the work I cited, Tracing Back the Radiance, such a distinction is made. For example, "your pure mind-essence of void and calm numinous awareness." Here is a more elaborate description of this mind-essence in response to an expository question within the text,

These are examples of apophatic discourse; they are not intended to expose the essence of the mind. If I did not point out that the cler, constant awareness which is present now, never interrupted and never obscured, is your own mind, what could I refer to as being uncreated and signless and so forth? For this reason, you must realize that all the various teachings explain only that it is this awareness which is neither arising nor ceasing and so forth....Voidness means that it is devoid of all signs; it is still an aphophatic term. Calm is the immutable, immovable aspect of the real nature; it is not the same as empty nothingness. Awareness refers to the manifestation of this very essence; it is not the same as discrimination. These three components alone comprise the fundamental essence of the true mind. Therefore, from the initial activation of the bodhicitta until the attainment of Buddhahood, there is only calmness and only awareness, unchanging and unterrupted. p 164

Thus, the essence of the mind clearly appears to be identified as empty and aware. For someone not looking to pick a nit, this sure seems to be describing rigpa. Now, to get back to the original reason for my comment--essence/function. On top of this basic understanding of mind-essence, with the two notions (functions) of luminosity and unconfined ability to reflect anything (per the mirror analogy mentioned earlier), we see that, although the terminology is different, the underlying framework is essentially the same as Dzogchen--unconfined empty awareness. At least that is how it appears to me.

It is not the same -- the workin Buswell you cited is referring to mind, but ngo bo, rang bzhin and thugs rje refer to the three aspects of the wisdom of the basis that are never involved with mind even for a second. Hence, it is different.

Jyoti wrote:The intellect (means) also connected to the body, since it is of the reason (vidya) of thusness (body).

Jyoti

Hi. When you do the delineating of Khorde Rushen in Dzogchen you know what intelelect is very useful for Obviously not some kind of Yogacara. Considering Dzogchen do not forget to get DI from a Dzogchen master of course also please.

I guess it all depends on what connotation or sense words like "calm" and "numinous" have for different people, but for me personally this sounds more like mind than rigpa.

I can see that. I think a lot has to do the the English translation and also the language the original author, Chinul, had to work with at the time. For example calm means undisturbed, which is certainly the case with mind-essence--it's undisturbable by anything the mind can concoct. "Numinous" refers to "surpassing comprehension or understanding", which fits in with the context surrounding the quoted phrase. It's an awareness that is beyond discriminative understanding. When I read Chinul's book some years ago, there was just no doubt for me that, underlying much of his discussion, there was an emphasis on recognizing fundamentally unstained awareness. Others may differ on that assessment!

All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni BuddhaWanting to grasp the ungraspable, you exhaust yourself in vain. --Gendun Rinpoche

I am unwilling to agree that the intention of Chinul and the intention of Tulku Orgyen, for example, are the same, based on superficial similarities based on English translations divorced from the original language of the texts cited.

Also, while I am not expert in any sense in Korean, Chinese, etc., I am expert in Tibetan language, especially the language of Dzogchen, as well as Indo-Tibetan tenet systems in general. I have digested Nubchen's differentiation of Dzogchen and Chan in his bsam gtan mig sgron (I suggest you try to as well) -- I therefore see no compelling reason to take your assessment seriously.

The best that can be said is that Dzogchen includes the meaning of Chan, Yogacara, etc., but the reverse cannot be said to be true.

Malcolm wrote:It is not the same -- the workin Buswell you cited is referring to mind, but ngo bo, rang bzhin and thugs rje refer to the three aspects of the wisdom of the basis that are never involved with mind even for a second. Hence, it is different.

Yes, mind-essence (ngo bo, rang bzhin and thugs rje) never interacts with mind. Analogous to space not being affected by objects, sky not being affected by clouds. It's not a difficult concept to grasp and direct introduction brings it into the realm of experience.

Why do assert that Chinul is referring to mind when the distinction is clearly made between mind and mind-essence. And Chinul's mind-essence has the aspects we would expect it to?

All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni BuddhaWanting to grasp the ungraspable, you exhaust yourself in vain. --Gendun Rinpoche

anjali wrote:Why do assert that Chinul is referring to mind when the distinction is clearly made between mind and mind-essence. And Chinul's mind-essence has the aspects we would expect it to?

Because the nature of the mind for sutra is strictly emptiness. Lhundrup is never mentioned nor implied in sutra at all in any way. The understanding of mind (sems, citta) in Chan/Sutra is completely different than in Dzogchen for that reason.

But you can believe whatever you like, I don't have time to propely correct your misunderstanding. Read Nubchen.

Malcolm wrote:Because the nature of the mind for sutra is strictly emptiness. Lhundrup is never mentioned nor implied in sutra at all in any way. The understanding of mind (sems, citta) in Chan/Sutra is completely different than in Dzogchen for that reason.

But you can believe whatever you like, I don't have time to propely correct your misunderstanding. Read Nubchen.

Chinul clearly states that mind-essence includes both awareness and emptiness. Therefore, his exposition can't be considered strictly sutra. I will take a look at Nubchen, if I can find a good english translation.

All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni BuddhaWanting to grasp the ungraspable, you exhaust yourself in vain. --Gendun Rinpoche

Malcolm wrote:Because the nature of the mind for sutra is strictly emptiness. Lhundrup is never mentioned nor implied in sutra at all in any way. The understanding of mind (sems, citta) in Chan/Sutra is completely different than in Dzogchen for that reason.

But you can believe whatever you like, I don't have time to propely correct your misunderstanding. Read Nubchen.

Chinul clearly states that mind-essence includes both awareness and emptiness. Therefore, his exposition can't be considered strictly sutra. I will take a look at Nubchen, if I can find a good english translation.

Chinul may state that mind-essence includes both awareness and emptiness but he is still missing the third part, thugje.Thus no lhundrub, thus the two are clearly different definitions of nature of mind.

Josef wrote:Chinul may state that mind-essence includes both awareness and emptiness but he is still missing the third part, thugje.Thus no lhundrub, thus the two are clearly different definitions of nature of mind.

Elsewhere he states that the mind-essence has the three properties of a mirror: ground, luminosity, and capacity (to reflect anything). People can come to whatever conclusions they want: the same, different, both same and different, neither same nor different.

All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni BuddhaWanting to grasp the ungraspable, you exhaust yourself in vain. --Gendun Rinpoche

Malcolm wrote:Because the nature of the mind for sutra is strictly emptiness. Lhundrup is never mentioned nor implied in sutra at all in any way. The understanding of mind (sems, citta) in Chan/Sutra is completely different than in Dzogchen for that reason.

But you can believe whatever you like, I don't have time to propely correct your misunderstanding. Read Nubchen.

Chinul clearly states that mind-essence includes both awareness and emptiness. Therefore, his exposition can't be considered strictly sutra. I will take a look at Nubchen, if I can find a good english translation.

What makes you think the nature of the mind being both empty and aware is not a sutrayāna perspective? It in fact is.

In the sangs rgyas kyi gtsug tor dpa' bar 'gro ba'i mdo it states:

"Next, from stabilizing clear and empty mind, it only becomes prajñā".

Ārya-susthitamatidevaputraparipṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

"The wise are liberated by knowing the phenomena's empty luminous nature in that way."

Ārya-pratyutpanna-buddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

Buddhas are made by the mind;are also seen with the mind. The mind is my buddhahood;the mind is the sugata.The mind is my body;buddhas are seen with the mind. The mind is my awakening;the mind is natureless.The mind is not known with the mind, the mind does not see the mind.The mind is not perceved as the mind, not known as the mind, it is nirvana.

Josef wrote:Chinul may state that mind-essence includes both awareness and emptiness but he is still missing the third part, thugje.Thus no lhundrub, thus the two are clearly different definitions of nature of mind.

Elsewhere he states that the mind-essence has the three properties of a mirror: ground, luminosity, and capacity (to reflect anything). People can come to whatever conclusions they want: the same, different, both same and different, neither same nor different.

Also the common sutra has ādarśa-jñāna i.e. the mirrorlike wisdom.

Also Hindus use the metaphor of the mirror. Surely you are not going to equate Shankaracarya and Chinul?

Further the example of a mirror is used over and over again in sutra teachings. Surely you are not going to assert Dzogchen exists in sutra?